• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

US student loans grotesquely high

Some degrees are harder for some people than others.
Yes, there are individual differences. Nevertheless, there are also objective differences in how difficult various majors are.
That's why a lot of marginal students gravitate toward certain majors.

Which is one reason I did a lot of technical writing at my last job.
Sure, some people are hopeless at writing. That does not change my point that there is a lot more instruction in writing for a science/engineering degree than there is in math or science in a humanities degree.

FFS, medical schools admit English majors!
Of course they do. As long as you pass your math/science prereqs (biology w lab x2, physics w lab x2, gen chem w lab x2, orgo w lab x 2, biochem, at least a baby stats class). You also have to get a decent (unless you are black because affirmative action) score on MCAT which includes a lot of science content. That's why most people pursuing medicine take a biology degree where these prereqs are already required for their major. I would say most English (or other non-squishy science) majors decide on pursuing medicine later and have to play catchup doing a postbac to meet the requirements.

You may think it is a puff degree but understanding literature helps you understand people, something that is extremely important if you become a physician.
It would be interesting to know what the admission rates for people with English degree vs. average. I think a degree like that hurts more than it helps. For one, if you take biology there are classes on anatomy and physiology, genetics etc. that give you a much stronger foundation than just taking the bare minimum in prerecs. And even a biology major needs a good deal of humanities core and electives classes that round off the education. So I do not see what benefit an English degree would confer.

Yes, of course, you need to understand science, in general, and biology in particular with a decent understanding of chemistry and physics. But if you cannot relate to patients, you're pretty useless as a physician just as you are if you don't understand human biology.
tumblr_ns6ss7hSDp1ubvguto1_500.gifv
 
I wonder if Derec has ever done any technical writing.
I have.
This recalls his uninformed opinion of a semi-automatic human killing machine he has never handled, but about which believes he has fully informed, nuanced opinions.
Your recall is as faulty as your analytical skills.
- I have handled semi-auto weapons.
- I know how they work, unlike many on the "ban" side

I bet my views on them are much more grounded in reality than yours.

I don't think he is equipped to deal with the ambiguities of American English to a degree that would enable him to write a coherent technical paragraph that would not be subject to misinterpretation. It's not as easy as it looks.
Bullshit, old-timer.
 
Degrees in fields are harder for some people and easier for others. I think
You think what?

That's because you think wrong. History teaches one about the value of context, how to organize disparate views and sources into a single narrative - something that is useful in many lines of work.
Are you a history major btw.? Can you also elaborate on this?
 
You would be amazed at how many engineering grads with PEs and 10 years of experience don't know how to write. Simply amazed. This is one of my pet rants, and I have actually started a program within the company where two or three younger engineers are paired with a mentor who teaches them how to write technical reports and memos. It is that bad.
Who is that mentor? A fellow engineer? Or some rando English major?
And of course, whatever is taught in college, it is up to the individual to take that with them or forget it as soon as an assignment or exam is over with.

Our Chief Counsel has an undergrad degree in English.
But chief counsel implies a law degree. Nobody is arguing that lawyers are underpaid. Quite the opposite in fact.

Our Chief Human Resources Officer, also a SVP, is an English grad with an MS, as are most of the regional client management leaders, all making significantly more than $200k/year.
MS in English or in something more useful. :)
Of course there are exceptions to everything. But the averages show pretty clearly that there are differences in how much different majors make.
wsjcollegerank-720x900.jpg

The data shows both significant differences between majors as well as that within majors there is a big spread.

You can't be a licensed engineer without a technical degree, but if you don't have other skills you will be stuck doing technical work for the rest of your life working for peanuts.
A broad skillset is useful. I don't disagree with that. I would still argue that a typical engineering or science curriculum is much broader than a typical humanities curriculum.
 
I didn't take any loans for my college education.
That's a big part of my point. One can still get a good education without breaking the bank. Loans may be necessary for many, but the amount of loans that has to be taken out plays a big role in how affordable paying them off will be.
and I absolutely would not feel like an idiot if the government were to pay off the loans of other people who were not as fortunate as I have been.
There is being less fortunate. And then there is being entitled (to go to an expensive private college and expect Uncle Joe to pay for it) or poor planning.
You mention family support. That makes you more fortunate than some. But those whose families are less well off have access to Pell Grants. I have no problem with programs like that.
I have a big problem with fauxgressives demanding that all student loans be forgiven no matter how much they are or how much those who took them make. That has nothing whatsoever to do with being "not as fortunate as I have been".

In fact, I actually advocate for such a thing, because I am not a selfish little prick who cannot see the world beyond the tip of their own nose.
Do you think that all student loans should be forgiven, as fauxgressives are demanding?
 
But I really do NOT believe that such highly esteemed institutions of higher education should be only for the wealthy. Talent and intellect and personal drive and ambition are distributed across the socioeconomic groups. Rich kids can learn a great deal from kids who come from much more modest means.
And it's not like Harvard et al do not have need-based scholarships already. They do. Maybe they can offer more given their endowments.
I think though that those scholarships should be offered on a race- and gender-neutral basis.
 
Interest on credit card debt was no longer tax deductible as a result of the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
So, well before my time then.

I wasn't specifically referring to you, but to others. It is very typical for people to cite engineering degrees as the most valuable or most desirable or hardest to obtain, with the bar being assumed to be much lower for humanities.
Well, those things are all true. Financially, engineering degrees are far more valuable on average than humanities degrees, outliers notwithstanding.
Part of it is that those degrees are objectively harder, and fewer people will therefore pursue them.

I would not say that skills in humanities are not needed or that we do not need English or History teachers. But the demand for such is obviously lower than for say people who design machines or computer chips. And I do not think universities are doing their students any favors if they admit more students to an English PhD program than society can reasonably employ. That just leads to frustration when they graduate and cannot find meaningful work in their field.

I think that universities have no business attempting to guess where the market for various degrees will exist 5, 10, 20 years down the road.
But they need to set the number of admission slots by some criteria. Other than "more students --> more tuition dollars for us".

If there is only room for 100 incoming undergrads in the engineering program due to number of faculty and limitations of facilities, it is stupid to admit 300 incoming undergrads even if they are well qualified.
True. The school is not prepared. And the result may be a shortage down the line.
My experience in a competitive undergrad program is that there are usually some courses that are purposely set as make/break/elimination courses for prospective students into some majors and sometimes to professional schools.
Weed-out courses. Yes.

Back in my day, organic chemistry was one such course which was designed specifically to weed out weaker chemistry students who wanted to become chemistry majors or, more importantly, to apply to medical schools. This weeding out was valued over teaching students principles and contents, which I think was an extreme disservice to all.
I do not think those two are mutually exclusive though. One can teach principles and contents and weed out all non-hackers, as Gunnery Sgt. Hartman would say.

I used to think the same thing. The truth is that one can be a brilliant...physicist or chemist or engineer but totally suck at teaching.
One can also have a BS in Education and totally suck at teaching. But I think a depth of knowledge in the discipline beyond curriculum itself is important in a teacher.

Teaching effectively is built upon not just knowledge of the subject
Yes, but it is a necessary condition. Otherwise the teacher is just a glorified babysitter with a powerpoint.

The way that I think students should 'pay' for their education is by paying taxes on a means tested basis and by using their degrees/whatever they learned as best they can.
Well if you went to a public university, that already happens to a point.
A big chunk of the cost is born by the state (less than it used to be but still significant) and you hopefully pay for it in taxes.

We ALL benefit from a well educated society. We should all pay for everything needed in a stable, healthy society, each according to their ability to pay.
Ideally, yes. But not all education is beneficial as it is now. Unfortunately, much of university education has been politicized. Especially things like social science where there is a lot of political bias.
 
I'm sure you're familiar with the "debt-ceiling crises" occasionally imposed by Republicans. We don't need to discuss them except that they demonstrate that your "cannot run out of US dollars. They can always spend more" is at best an over-simplification.
The debt ceiling is a constraint imposed on the government by itself. They can spend more (and always do), but sometimes they don't want to.

The U.S. government borrows dollars. (It sells Treasury bills, notes and bonds.) If its credit is in doubt (if there is risk that the dollar will fall in value), bond-buyers will insist on higher interest rates for those bonds. This is just what happens when a private household needs to borrow!
It seems to me that you are conflating two different meanings of "credit is in doubt".

When the bank believes my credit is in doubt, it has nothing to do with the value of the currency I am paying them, but rather the likelihood that I will be able to produce the money at all. As the value of the dollar fall due to inflation then my ability to pay my debts tends to improve, because I get more dollars for my labour.
PLEASE: Read those words. Think about the words. Don't just chime in with the Pavlovian-reflex "Ha ha chortle! Comparing government debt with household debt! Idiot! Chortle chortle ha ha."
🖕:)

It is your (and bilby's) insistence that government spending is fundamentally different from private spending that shows ignorance, and leads to confusion.
The difference is in the sequencing; If I want an automobile, then before I can buy one, I must obtain the money from someone else. I can earn it, borrow it, or even steal it; But I cannot buy anything until I obtain it.

Currency issuing governments do things the exact opposite way. First they buy stuff; Then, if they want to reduce the inflationary effect of their purchasing, they might decide to get money from someone else to offset that.

If you don't think that this is a fundamental difference, then you don't think.

Your claim that the U.S. government creates money by spending is confused. You are ignoring two facts: (1) government spending is essentially the same as private spending; (2) there are at least two DIFFERENT types of fiat money.

(1) Government spending and private spending.
. (A) Cash
. . (i) Government taxes George Roe $1000 and buys a statue of a frog with the proceeds, decorating some bureaucrat's office.
. . (ii) Government does NOT tax George Roe. With the extra $1000, George buys the same statue himself and decorates his living room.
Same-same.

. (B) Borrowing
. . (i) Government sells a bond (goes into debt) to raise $1000; then buys the statue.
. . (ii) George Roe buys the statue putting it on his credit card.
Same-same. Some borrowers have better credit ratings than others. So what?

(2) Fiat Money
The United States has issued various sorts of paper money over the years: United States Notes, Silver Certificates, etc. Lincoln's "greenbacks" were promises to pay gold at some undisclosed future date. This paper traded at a very big discount to its putative value in gold. Bank of America issues traveler's checks: promises to redeem in legal tender. These trade at 100 cents on the dollar. (At banks in foreign countries, you get a slightly better rate on a traveler's check than actual Benjamins!) WHICH is the "fiat money"? A distrusted promise to pay in gold, or a trusted promise to redeem in sound central-bank currency? :cool:

But never mind. For over 50 years, the United States has NOT issued United States Notes, NOR Silver certificates, etc. All paper currency issued in the United States for fifty years has been "Federal Reserve Notes." (We will ignore coins and postage stamps. OK?)

Obviously most money these days is electronic; there's no need for paper Benjamins. This electronic money is created by banks, both private banks and the FRB (but NOT the U.S. Treasury). The electronic money created by the FRB has essentially the exact same status as the physical Benjamins it issues.

Federal Reserve Notes are issued BY the individual Federal Reserve Banks, and are backed 100% by assets of the Federal Reserve Banks. Government agencies pay for their purchases using checking accounts. These accounts do NOT have overdraft protection.. If the agency needs physical Benjamins, it does what any bank customer would do: It cashes a check at a bank branch. Clear?

The relationship between the US Government and the FR Banks may be confusing. The FR Banks are nominally owned by its Member (private) banks; the 12 Bank Governors are elected by private banks. But the U.S. President appoints a majority of the two governing committees; and Congress imposes rules. After paying members their statutory dividends, any excess profit made by FRB is paid into the U.S. Treasury. Despite these facts, the FRB's mechanisms are those of a private bank operating independent of government. This may change at some FUTURE date due to politics, crime or corruption, but for over a hundred years this is how FRB has operated.

Some countries' governments have a form of Fiat Money where they just print whatever they need. That is NOT how Federal Reserve Notes work. Clear?

Thanks for your kind attention. I hope you learned something.
Some of this information is irrelevant or unnecessary detail.

Both the federal reserve and the US treasury are part of the same government. There's legislation that governs how the treasury gets money from the federal reserve, but the constraints that the US government imposes on itself are not important. The important point is that the the US government cannot run out of US dollars. The federal reserve can make more at any time.

Here's how the US government's unlimited bank account works in the US:
  • The US Treasury has a bank account at the Federal Reserve,
  • When you pay your taxes to the IRS, your money goes into this account, along with other government revenues.
  • When the government "prints money", it comes out of this account.
It's a government bank account with an unlimited balance.

Some countries' governments have a form of Fiat Money where they just print whatever they need. That is NOT how Federal Reserve Notes work. Clear?
No, that's not clear at all.

The US dollar is fiat money. All of it. And the government can spend an unlimited amount of those dollars. The US government could pay every American a billion dollars. It would devalue the currency, but they could do it.
 
It's a government bank account with an unlimited balance.

The US dollar is fiat money. All of it. And the government can spend an unlimited amount of those dollars. The US government could pay every American a billion dollars. It would devalue the currency, but they could do it.
I've reddened two statements I claim are False. Do you have a cite for them?

I went into much detail to explain the difference between central-bank money and printing-press money. If you can't think beyond "Fiat money is fiat money", sorry. (Out of curiosity, how do you classify Abe Lincoln's greenbacks? Or U.S. Silver Certificates when they were issued?)

And by the way, U.S. Treasury Bonds do carry a credit rating. There was a time several decades ago when IBM was actually paying a slightly lower interest rate for bonds of a certain duration than the U.S.T. was paying!
 
  • The US Treasury has a bank account at the Federal Reserve,
  • When you pay your taxes to the IRS, your money goes into this account, along with other government revenues.
  • When the government "prints money", it comes out of this account.

Despite the huge detail I went into describing FRB and money creation mechanics, this summary makes me think you either didn't read, or didn't understand, a word of it.

What do you think it means for the to government to "print money"? Why does it even sell bonds if it can print unlimited money?

The R's periodically threaten to shut-down government by not raising the debt ceiling. Why don't the Ds just say "Who cares! We'll just print any money we need"?
 
Despite the huge detail I went into describing FRB and money creation mechanics, this summary makes me think you either didn't read, or didn't understand, a word of it.
What a fucking pity, hmm?
I went into much detail to explain the difference between central-bank money and printing-press money. If you can't think beyond "Fiat money is fiat money", sorry. (Out of curiosity, how do you classify Abe Lincoln's greenbacks? Or U.S. Silver Certificates when they were issued?)
The US dollar was a commodity-backed currency when Lincoln was president. It isn't any more.

I doubt that there any silver certificates still in circulation. If a banknote is tucked away in someone's rare coin collection then it is effectively out of the money supply, and might as well not be currency at all.

The vast majority of US dollars are digital, while a tiny fraction are paper banknotes and coins.
And by the way, U.S. Treasury Bonds do carry a credit rating. There was a time several decades ago when IBM was actually paying a slightly lower interest rate for bonds of a certain duration than the U.S.T. was paying!
Of course, but the meaning of the credit rating assigned to treasury bonds is nothing like my personal credit rating.
What do you think it means for the to government to "print money"? Why does it even sell bonds if it can print unlimited money?
I think it is an expression that means the government has spent more than they have collected through taxes and bond sales.

The government issues bonds to reduce the money supply. If they didn't then the value of the dollar would fall too quickly.
 
@ bigfield — I am not going to keep answering you. You side-step the rhetorical questions intended to broaden your view. I AM curious where you get your ideas. They didn't come from any textbook or intelligent commentator. I don't think there is any YouTuber this stupid. My guess is they are vague ideas you invented yourself, for which you've made zero attempt to confirm via Googling or whatever. What do I win?

I will ask one more question.
What do you think it means for the to government to "print money"? Why does it even sell bonds if it can print unlimited money?
I think it is an expression that means the government has spent more than they have collected through taxes and bond sales.

I think that taxes plus net bond sales will EQUAL spending exactly (modulo tiny changes to bank accounts which always have positive balances). Can you point to ANY on-line page (or even YouTube rant?) that suggests differently?
 
Are you a history major btw.? Can you also elaborate on this?
Nope. History teaches people to look at the context or big picture which helps people grapple with all sorts of problems by looking and understanding how the past influences today. Historians learn how to identify and shift through various original documents and sources and then how to organize disparate sources and events into a single coherent narrative. Simply put, historians learn how to use the past to tell simple but compelling true stories that help us deal with issues today.
 
@ bigfield — I am not going to keep answering you.
Suit yourself.
I think that taxes plus net bond sales will EQUAL spending exactly
Of course. The US government, like other governments, imposes that rule on itself. The Australian government does the same thing.

This doesn't mean that taxes and bond sales are necessary to finance spending. The government collects taxes and issues bonds to take money out of the money supply, to balance out the money they've put in via spending. It's a means of managing inflation, not a means of fundraising.

1662131920935.png

1662131959016.png

1662131998224.png

Do Taxes and Bonds Finance Government Spending?
Stephanie Kelton
 
  • Money is created by private banks, in a process called "fractional-reserve banking."
This depends on how you define "money".

Fractional reserve banking certainly increases the movement of money, but that doesn't mean the total amount of money has actually increased even though for economic purposes it has.

I like to compare it to a wheel. Stick a dollar on it and turn the wheel. From the standpoint of the economy you count that dollar every time it comes around and you see it again--but it's really still just a dollar. Fractional reserve banking is spinning the wheel, not printing dollars.

Sigh. We've been around and around on this. (You may be thinking about "velocity of money" but that measures rapidity of buy/sell transactions. Fractional reserve banking involves deposits and loans.)

To avoid any ambiguity or lack of definiteness, let's discuss specifically the USA.

If a bank lends George Roe $1000, then M1, M2 and M3 each increase by $1000. M1, M2 and/or M3 are what economists mean when they speak of "money." This increase to the money supply occurs regardless of whether George takes his money in the form of a check-book or smart-phone App or asks for physical "Benjamins."

Is the preceding statement True or False? I'm not asking this because I don't know the answer! :cool: I'm trying to define a base-line for the discussion. If you believe that the loan to George Roe did NOT increase the money supply by $1000, then explain what your definition of "money" is, and why you think your definition is preferable to the definition that economists use.
You're not rebutting me. The bank loaning money is a form of moving money around.
 
  • Money is created by private banks, in a process called "fractional-reserve banking."
This depends on how you define "money".

Fractional reserve banking certainly increases the movement of money, but that doesn't mean the total amount of money has actually increased even though for economic purposes it has.

I like to compare it to a wheel. Stick a dollar on it and turn the wheel. From the standpoint of the economy you count that dollar every time it comes around and you see it again--but it's really still just a dollar. Fractional reserve banking is spinning the wheel, not printing dollars.

Sigh. We've been around and around on this. (You may be thinking about "velocity of money" but that measures rapidity of buy/sell transactions. Fractional reserve banking involves deposits and loans.)

To avoid any ambiguity or lack of definiteness, let's discuss specifically the USA.

If a bank lends George Roe $1000, then M1, M2 and M3 each increase by $1000. M1, M2 and/or M3 are what economists mean when they speak of "money." This increase to the money supply occurs regardless of whether George takes his money in the form of a check-book or smart-phone App or asks for physical "Benjamins."

Is the preceding statement True or False? I'm not asking this because I don't know the answer! :cool: I'm trying to define a base-line for the discussion. If you believe that the loan to George Roe did NOT increase the money supply by $1000, then explain what your definition of "money" is, and why you think your definition is preferable to the definition that economists use.
You're not rebutting me. The bank loaning money is a form of moving money around.
You are mistaken on both counts. Moving money around would literally involve the same amount shifting from entity. Bank lending increases the amount that moves around.
 
Blah Blah Blah. [(Since 2009) The FRB attempts to increase the money supply (and finances government) by buying large quantities of debt.]

Of course it does. Is THIS your novel insight? What a joke.

The point I repeatedly emphasized — as you would have seen if you had tried to learn instead of babbling ignorance — is that this policy began in the U.S. only after 2009. I REPEATEDLY specified that monetary details changed in 2009.

In #530 of this thread:
Swammerdami said:
Setting aside coinage, postage stamps, etc. the U.S. government has three ways to pay for its spending. Please memorize this list: I refer to A, B and C below. And there WILL be a quiz! :cool:
(A) collecting taxes, and
(B) selling debt paper to private entities, foreign and domestic, and
(C) indirectly selling debt paper to the Federal Reserve Banks.

The Treasury does NOT sell debt to the FR Banks: The FRB buys debt paper on the secondary market. Things like the SocSec Trust Fund can be viewed as a hybrid: The funds are collected as tax and then invested in Treasury debt paper until needed.

Until the great Credit Crisis of 2008, debt paper held by the FRB system was insignificant — Only (A) and (B) above applied. The FRB would often buy a few hundreds of millions in bonds to lubricate financial markets, but would then often sell it back soon after.

The "money printing" rampage began during the "Great Recession" and now totals several trillion dollars.

ALL economists agree that money the government spends needs to be sucked back up (via (A) or (B)) to prevent inflation. Please note, however that the cyan line in the graph shows another form of money sucking, albeit potentially unreliable. Conventional economists view (C) — "Quantitative Easing" — as a stopgap, as paper the FRB will sell if/when normalcy returns. Economists of the MMT school believe (C) can be made permanent, although some caution must be exercised to avoid immoderate inflation. I am not prepared to adjudicate this difference of opinion.

As clearly seen in the violet line, FRB assets held steady at about 4 or 5% until about 2011: there was no "ex-nihilo" money creation. The U.S. government spent money it acquired by taxes or by borrowing from foreign or private investors.

Is THAT what your perverse obstinacy (and bilby's) has been about the whole time? Failure to read my #530?

You can't redeem yourself by pretending that you knew all along that QE was a very recent phenomenon. Had you been aware of that you would have prefaced your babbled half-truths with phrases like "during the recent MMT era" or some such.

You're still completely confused on the mechanics of course. But thanks for participating.


If a bank lends George Roe $1000, then M1, M2 and M3 each increase by $1000. M1, M2 and/or M3 are what economists mean when they speak of "money." This increase to the money supply occurs regardless of whether George takes his money in the form of a check-book or smart-phone App or asks for physical "Benjamins."

Is the preceding statement True or False? I'm not asking this because I don't know the answer! :cool: I'm trying to define a base-line for the discussion. If you believe that the loan to George Roe did NOT increase the money supply by $1000, then explain what your definition of "money" is, and why you think your definition is preferable to the definition that economists use.
You're not rebutting me. The bank loaning money is a form of moving money around.
No one's trying to "rebut" you — you've said nothing with content except to admit you don't know what "money" is.

Just answer the question please. Did the loan to George Roe increase the money supply by $1000? If not, why is your definition — if you even have one — better than the one all economists use? (Do you need a link to find out what M1, M2 and M3 are?)
 

It is difficult to secure a credit card under age 21 since the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 and you still have to demonstrate that you have a steady source of income. Which is difficult to do at age 18, while going to university.
That's different than in my day. That said, a college student can still have a part time job.

The entire point of attending a university is to get an education that will hopefully allow you to lead a better life.
But that education does not need to be at an expensive private university.
And going to an affordable public one will not leave you with "mountain of debt you cannot hope to pay off" just for an undergrad. Especially since there are things like Pell Grants and scholarships.
Yes, there are Pell Grants but for the 22-23 academic year, they are for less that $7K, which will go a long way toward covering tuition in many state schools but probably not fully cover the tuition nor touch books, fees or living expenses. Here's what I found about qualifications for FAFSA:

What is the income limit for fafsa 2020?


For the 2020-21 cycle, if you're a dependent student and your family has a combined income of $27,000 or less, your expected contribution to college costs would automatically be zero. The same goes if you (as an independent student) and your spouse earn no more than $27,000 annually

Obviously, income limits depend heavily on number of dependents, etc. but as you can tell, there is a huge number of students whose families would not qualify for Pell Grants but who would also be unable to contribute or contribute more than very minimally for college expenses, even assuming the students live at home and work part time.
 
I really do not get the contempt that a lot of posters have for anyone who graduates with a degree in anything other than engineering. Engineers should be grateful more people don't pursue engineering because if everyone did, an engineering degree would not be worth very much.

The issue is not engineering only, but rather the demand for the degree. Too many people get easy degrees that they find are of little use in the labor market. Many degrees have little use other than in teaching the subject in question.
It’s always interesting what some people consider to be ‘easy’ degrees and how many people have opinions about how easy it is to find jobs ‘in those fields’ except to reach, as though that were an easy job. As far as I am aware, there are no labor economists posting on this board.

You are correct that there are no job postings that say ‘English Major wanted, starting salary $100K/year.’ But there is a great need for people who are able to compose a coherent paragraph or mage a cogent point, as I am reminded every time I read anything posted on the internet.
But you don't need to be an English major to be able to write decently. That's why you take English classes, not why you become an English major.
I would argue no, that's not why you take English courses. That's why many/most universities require freshman composition and why many universities require ALL majors to have some required coursework that is heavy in writing.
 
I would argue no, that's not why you take English courses. That's why many/most universities require freshman composition and why many universities require ALL majors to have some required coursework that is heavy in writing.
Well, yes. A unversity degree, like a high school degree, should confirm basic compentencies.
 
Back
Top Bottom